Cyberspace Law

Subscribe to Cyberspace Law via RSS

By: David Muradyan

Online service providers and operators of such sites should take careful note of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., Case No. 10-3342-cv (“Viacom”), where the court held that service providers and operators will not be protected from the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), if they have “actual knowledge or awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of infringement.”

For background, “[t]he DMCA was enacted in 1998 to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty,” Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 440 (2d Cir. 2001), and to update domestic copyright law for the digital age. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004). In particular, the DMCA established a series of four “safe harbors” that allow qualifying service providers to limit their liability for claims of copyright infringement based on (a) “transitory digital network communications,” (b) “system caching,” (c) “information residing on systems or networks at [the] direction of users,” and (d) “information location tools.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(a)-(d). The safe harbor at issue in Viacom was § 512(c), which covers infringement claims that arise “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). To qualify for protection under any of the safe harbors, a party must: (1) be a “service provider,” which is defined as “a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor,” Id. § 512(k)(1)(B); (2) satisfy certain “conditions of eligibility,” including the adoption and reasonable implementation of a “repeat infringer” policy that “provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network,” Id. § 512(i)(1)(A), and (3) accommodate “standard technical measures” that are “used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works.” Id. §§ 512(i)(1)(B), (i)(2). The § 512(c) safe harbor will apply only if the service provider: Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds that YouTube Is Not Protected by the “Safe Harbor” Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

By: Jeff Pietsch

What happens when someone takes your virtual goods?  You know, the virtual goods that you earn or buy by playing games such as Farmville or Second Life.  Usually, these goods are in the form of virtual objects such as weapons or special character features.  Virtual goods can also be in the form of virtual currency which can be used to purchase virtual objects.

Virtual goods and currencies were recently valued at more than $3 billion dollars globally.  Despite the large virtual economy, the law is relatively unclear when it comes to how virtual goods are treated.  Should virtual goods be treated similar to property laws or are virtual goods merely an aspect of a game that can be changed or eliminated at the whim of the game creator?  A recent class action lawsuit against Google may help clarify these issues for gamers and game developers alike.

The plaintiffs in this case are players of an online video game known as SuperPoke! Pets (“SPP”) who purchased virtual gold or other virtual items within SPP.  SPP allows its users to adopt, name and care for a virtual pet.  Users can interact with their virtual pet, dress it, customize its environment and also interact with other user’s virtual pets.  From its creation in 2008, SPP’s popularity increased and it was eventually acquired by Google in 2010.Continue Reading Virtual Pet Owners Sue Google over Virtual Gold

By: Nathan Geronimo

A few months ago I wrote about the dangers of posting information online that contradicted your own contentions when involved in litigation.  I cited to cases where posts on social networking sites were used as evidence against plaintiffs in civil cases.  A recent case involving blogs and social networking sites illustrates yet another legal issue associated with internet posts in the modern times: Posts affecting a third party’s privacy, and the possibility that such posts can be considered harassment.

Johnson v. Arlotta is a classic “jilted lover” story with a modern twist.  Andrew Arlotta and Ann Marie Johnson had a romantic relationship for just under a year.  After this relationship terminated, Arlotta continued to contact Johnson, who did not welcome Arlotta’s communications.  In late December 2009, Johnson obtained a six-month harassment restraining order against Arlotta, which prohibited Arlotta from committing any acts intended to adversely affect Johnson’s safety or privacy, and from having any contact with Johnson by email or by other means or persons.Continue Reading Don’t Blog on Me

By Zachary Wadlé

In my last column of 2011 I wrote about the proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) introduced in the United States Congress to provide the government with enhanced, but highly controversial, tools to fight online copyright infringement. As I noted, SOPA “spawned a fierce public relations and lobbying battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood that will play out in the media and in the halls of Congress in the months to come.” Despite the spotty record of my predictive powers, these words turned out to be prescient. The debate over SOPA has blown up in recent weeks, culminating with Wikipedia’s (and many other well-known internet sites) decision to black out their website on January 19, 2012. Google got in on the act too by “censoring” the Google logo on its homepage, (but still allowing use of its search engine and all other Google web services).

The online blackout led by Wikipedia had an immediate effect. The next day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, postponed critical votes on SOPA (and its companion Senate Bill – the “Protect Intellectual Property Act” or “PIPA”). Rumors swirled that Reid did not have the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to move the legislation past a key procedural hurdle, and Smith said, “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy.” For now, the legislation is tabled for further negotiation and re-drafting in light of the substantial criticism from internet heavyweights.Continue Reading ONLINE PIRACY WAR HEATS UP

By Nathan Geronimo

People are better connected with friends and family than ever before.  Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be an excellent way to stay in touch with loved ones, and to get daily updates of people’s lives.  Similarly, through sites such as YouTube, people are able to share videos and information with others almost instantaneously.  While these sites can be great to disseminate images and information to a desired audience, they can also make information readily available to audiences that are less desirable to, and not contemplated by the poster.  There has been a great deal of buzz in recent years about employers using social media sites to perform “background checks” on prospective employees, and warning job applicants to be conscious of this fact when posting on social media sites.  In addition to this concern, recent cases illustrate a possible new concern for social media posters: use of social media posts in litigation.

In a recent decision in Louisiana, Boudwin v. General Ins. Co., Plaintiffs sued an individual and an insurance company based on alleged injuries arising out of a car accident.  In the lower Court, Plaintiff’s prevailed on the question of liability, but were unsatisfied with the jury awards of $25, 000 to the first Plaintiff, and $50,000 to the second Plaintiff.  On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the jury erred in failing to award them any damages for physical disability or loss of enjoyment of life.  To recover based on a theory of detrimental lifestyle change, a court looks at both the severity of the injury, and Plaintiff’s lifestyle prior to the injury.Continue Reading Involved in Litigation? Be Careful What You Post Online